Innovation, scaling-up, and local development in peripheral regions: do establishments scale-up locally?
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract A growing number of researchers suggest that there is no necessary connection between local firm-level innovation and local development. There are two connected arguments: first, many analysts suggest local innovation should be understood as a social and institutional process: from this perspective, just focusing on firms is too narrow. Second, regional economists view firms – especially innovative ones – as geographically mobile, tending to move away from regions which don’t offer them adequate support or resources. In this paper, we consider this second approach, exploring the degree to which innovators in peripheral regions purchase local services and scale-up their operations locally – two mechanisms that should connect firm-level innovation to local development. We find that peripheral innovators are more likely to use non-local services; their external expansion is also more likely to occur non-locally. If these results, obtained from cross-sectional analysis of a sparse data-set, are indicative of persistent processes, then they shed light on why firm-level innovation is disconnected from regional development in peripheral regions.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it